Category: Animals

Commission v Bulgaria C-97/17: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

Environment – Conservation of Wild Birds – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Protection of nature – Directive 2009/147/EC – Conservation of wild birds – Special Protection Area (SPA) – Classification as SPAs of the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147 – Important Bird Area (IBA) – IBA Rila – Partial classification of IBA Rila as an SPA

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:285, [2018] EUECJ C-97/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Animals

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609302

Freen and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 29 Jun 2000

A ‘badger sett’ does not include the earth above the tunnels and chambers forming the sett. There had been digging in the area of the sett, and above it, but no evidence of any damage to the sett itself. Because of the penal nature of the provision it was necessary to have a clear meaning for the words. The extended meaning suggested would put others in the countryside undertaking legitimate activities in danger.

Citations:

Times 29-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Badgers Act 1992

Animals

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80682

Regina v Somerset County Council ex parte Fewings and Others: QBD 10 Feb 1994

A Local Authority could include ethical considerations in making a decision to ban hunting over land which it owned if the power which it sought to use was in the Act.

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-1994, Independent 16-Feb-1994

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 120(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Fewings and Others CA 22-Mar-1995
The local authority had accepted the argument that stag hunting was cruel and had banned it from the land it owned in the Quantocks. The ban was challenged.
Held: The ban was unlawful. The decision had been reached on moral, and not on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Animals, Land

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88071

The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 27 Jul 2017

Claim for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to the slaughtering of sheep in accordance with religious rites.

Judges:

Fraser J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1961 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591657

Chancepixies Animal Welfare, Regina (on The Application of) v North Kesteven District Council: Admn 6 Jul 2016

The claimant sought judicial review of the revocation by the Council of a dog breeding licence, saying that it had been made without jurisdiction.

Judges:

Edis J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3617 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Licensing, Local Government, Animals

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588222

Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen: ECJ 17 Jul 2008

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 615/98 – Export refunds – Welfare of live bovine animals during transport – Directive 91/628/EEC – Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport – Rules relating to journey times and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community – Feeding and watering of the animals during the journey

Citations:

[2008] EUECJ C-207/06

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 615/98, Directive 91/628/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen ECJ 28-Feb-2008
ECJ Opinion – Export refunds – Protection of bovine animals during transport – Rest periods – Route plan . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581323

Commission v Italy: ECJ 20 Mar 2003

(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 79/409/EEC – Special protection areas – Conservation of wild birds

Citations:

[2003] EUECJ C-378/01, C-378/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Animals

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.180070

Appeal – Henderson v M’Kenzie: SCS 18 Mar 1876

A dog was alleged to have injured one sheep and scared the rest of a flock by chasing it, and the question of law for the opinion of the Court of Session was, among others:
‘Is the second section of ‘The Dogs Act 1871,’ limited in its operation to dogs which are dangerous to human beings, and which are not kept under proper control?’
Lord Ormidale, having set out the facts and the question posed to the Court, said: ‘These questions involve very much the same thing, and in the present instance an answer either affirmative or negative to the first must also dispose of the second. Now, in regard to the limitation of the Act to dogs which are dangerous to human beings there is certainly nothing in it expressly to that effect. Neither am I satisfied, looking at the statute in all its clauses, that any such limitation was intended. The title of the Act is quite general, being simply ‘An Act to provide further protection against dogs;’ and the preamble is in the same terms. The second section, again, of the Act, being that on which the complaint is founded, provides ‘that any Court of summary jurisdiction may take cognisance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control; and if it appear that such dog is dangerous, the Court may make an order directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control, or destroyed, and that, failing compliance, he shall be liable to certain penalties. Now, it is not said here that the dog must be dangerous to human beings, although if that had been meant nothing could have been more simple or easier than to have so expressed the enactment. Nor can I find anything in the other sections of the Act indicative of the limitation of the second section to dogs dangerous to human beings.
But it is only with the second section of the Act we have to deal at present; and considering that it contains no expressed limitation of its operation to dogs dangerous to human beings, but that in the generality of its words it is fairly, and I think not unreasonably, applicable to dogs dangerous to sheep, and it may be to other property, as well as human beings, I am of opinion that the first question submitted in the case must be answered in the negative;…’
Lord Gifford concurred and the Lord Justice-Clerk said:
‘I felt at first considerable difficulty in this case, for I am not disposed that a dog can be said to be dangerous in the sense of this statute because he is liable to injure property. I am quite clear that ‘dangerous’ does not mean ‘mischievous’. But I have come to agree with your Lordships that this complaint is sufficiently relevant, and that there was no ground for refusing to proceed with the case. The quality of being dangerous relates not to the acts of the dog, but to his nature and disposition. The Sheriff is to be satisfied that he is savage, ferocious, or dangerous. This nature may be shewn and proved in a variety of ways; and although the mere act of chasing sheep may not of itself, or in all cases, indicate that a dog is dangerous, the nature of the animal may be shewn in that way as well as in others. The mistake in the questions put to us, as well as in the judgment, consists in supposing that ‘dangerous’ must be defined in relation to some object. It is not so. It is the savage nature of the animal of which the Sheriff is to be satisfied.’

Judges:

Lord Gifford

Citations:

[1876] SLR 13 – 393, [1876] 3 R page 623

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dogs Act 1871

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Animals

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.576931

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency: SC 3 Apr 2019

The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on the proper interpretation of point 1.14 in light of the CJEU judgment.
Held: The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 18, UKSC 2017/0110

Links:

Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 19 Jan 30 am Video, SC 19 Jan 30 pm Video

Statutes:

EU Regulation No 853/2004 Annex I 1..1 . . . . . . . . 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
Appeal from – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 13-Mar-2013
The company managed a card loyalty scheme for retailers. The Revenue appealed against a decision that the company could reclaim VAT input tax on the goods purchased on the customers redeeming their points. The ECJ had decided that the service . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, European, Consumer

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.635237

Commission v Greece C-504/14: ECJ 10 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Nature conservation – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6(2) and (3) and Article 12(1)(b) and (d) – Wild fauna and flora – Conservation of natural habitats – Sea turtle Caretta caretta – Protection of sea turtles in the Gulf of Kyparissia – ‘Dunes of Kyparissia’ Site of Community importance – Protection of species

ECLI:EU:C:2016:847, [2016] EUECJ C-504/14
Bailii
European

Environment, Animals

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571266

Riley and Others v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 18 Oct 2016

The defendants appealed by case stated from convictions under the 2006 Act arising from the treatment of cows including at a slaughterhouse. Arguments were put that the prosecution was time barred.
Held: The court recognsed the limited role of the investigators and the CPS who would eventually institute proceedings. Time started running under s.31(1)(b) of the Act once a suitably qualified CPS employee has knowledge of ‘…evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings’, and the case was not time barred.

Gross LJ, Andrews J
[2016] EWHC 2531 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 530
Bailii, WLRD
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4(1), Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 127(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
Distinguished – Donnachie, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 16-Mar-2009
A prosecutor for the purposes of the Trade Descriptions Act was the council and not an individual employee. . .
Cited – RSPCA v Johnson Admn 16-Oct-2009
Appeal by the RSPCA by way of case stated from a decision refusing to hear an information laid by the Society on the basis that it was out of time. The defendant was a horse owner accused of causing suffering in his horse.
Held: Pill LJ said: . .
Cited – Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council Admn 15-Dec-2014
This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Warwickshire Justices to convict the appellant on a number of counts of contraventions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Animals

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570265

European Federation For Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: ECJ 21 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Cosmetic products – Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 – Article 18(1)(b) – Cosmetic products containing ingredients, or a combination of ingredients, which have been the subject of animal testing ‘in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation’ – Prohibition of marketing within the European Union – Scope

ECLI:EU:C:2016:703, [2016] EUECJ C-592/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009
European

Animals

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569505

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Opinion

Lord Stewart
[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 103
Bailii
Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007
Citing:
See Also – The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm . .
See Also – Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See Also – Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 106 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Planning, Utilities, Animals

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568774

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm

Lord Stewart
[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 104
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
See Also – Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 106 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See Also – Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See Also – The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Opinion . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, Animals

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568775

Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105: SCS 19 Jul 2016

[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 105
Bailii
Citing:
See Also – The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm . .

Cited by:
See Also – Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 106 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See Also – The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Opinion . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Animals

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568776

Commission v Greece C-416/07: ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Directives 91/628/EEC and 93/119/EC Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 – Protection of animals during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing Structural and general infringement of Community rules

[2009] EUECJ C-416/07
Bailii
Citing:
Opinion – Commission v Greece C-416/07 ECJ 2-Apr-2009
ECJ Opinion – Failure to fulfill obligations Article 226 EC Directive 91/628 Regulation No 1/2005 Protection of animals during transport and identification transporter authorizations route plans Control . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Animals

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566223

Pierson v Post: CA 1805

Post and his hounds were pursuing a fox on waste ground in Long Island when Pierson intercepted and killed it. Post sued, claiming ownership of the fox, and won at trial. The court was asked: ‘Whether a person who, with his own hounds, starts and hunts a fox on waste and uninhabited ground, and is on the point of seizing his prey, acquires such an interest in the animal, as to have a right of action against another, who in view of the huntsman and his dogs in full pursuit, and with knowledge of the chase, shall kill and carry him away?’
Held: (Livingston J dissenting) On appeal, the judgment was reversed by the New York Supreme Court, the majority view being given by Justice Tompkins. Mere pursuit gave Post no legal right to the fox, but that he became the property of Pierson, who intercepted and killed him.

Tompkins J, Livingston J
(1805) 3 Caines 175
Bailii
United States
Cited by:
Cited – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.650628

Commission v Austria (Chasse Printaniere A La Becasse Des Bois): ECJ 23 Apr 2020

(Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 2009/147 / EC – Conservation of wild birds – Authorizations for the spring hunting of male specimens of the species of birds’ woodcock ‘(Scolopax rusticola) in the Land of Lower Austria (Austria ) – Article 7 (4) and Article 9 (1) (c) – Absence of ‘other satisfactory solution’ – Concept of ‘small quantities’

C-161/19, [2020] EUECJ C-161/19, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 290
Bailii
European

Animals, Environment

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.654968

Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd: ECJ 19 Mar 1998

Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
ECJ (Free movement of goods) Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty – Directive 91/629/EEC – European Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes – Recommendation concerning Cattle – Export of calves from a Member State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the Convention and the Recommendation – Export to Member States which comply with the Directive but do not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems prohibited in the exporting State – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Exhaustive harmonisation – Validity of the Directive

Times 02-Apr-1998, [1998] ECR I-1251, [1998] EUECJ C-1/96
Bailii, Bailii
EC Treaty 34 36, Directive 91/629/EEC
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Compassion in World Farming Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 27-Nov-2003
The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly . .
See Also – Regina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Animals, Agriculture

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563234

Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn eV v Ministerium fur Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und landliche Raume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein: ECJ 3 Dec 2015

Judgment Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 – Article 1(5) – Protection of animals during transport – Transport of stray dogs from one Member State to another by an animal protection association – Concept of ‘economic activity’ – Directive 90/425/EEC – Article 12 – Concept of ‘dealers engaging in intra-Community trade’

C-301/14, [2015] EUECJ C-301/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

European, Animals

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556335

McMorn, Regina (on The Application of) v Natural England and Another: Admn 13 Nov 2015

The claimant gamekeeper challenged the rules imposed by the respondent for the control of shooting of buzzards. He said that buzzard predation had made his own pheasant based business unviable.
Held: The licences refusal was quashed: ‘ NE’s overall decision-making on the five applications left it well aware that the Claimant’s small business was by 2014 in dire straits. NE’s decision-making had not followed a consistent path: new requirements and evidential issues had been raised on various occasions and what had previously been regarded as settled and no longer at issue was re-opened, for example in whether serious damage existed and was caused by buzzards, and by buzzards which could usefully be controlled. The Technical Assessor had also concluded that a licence for live capture was justified, and that recommendation was being rejected. Careful scrutiny of the application is what NE said was required. In this respect, that it is not how it was dealt with. Careful scrutiny by NE of the reasons for which it was proposing to refuse was required to see if a yet further refusal of licensed control was justified.’

Ouseley J
[2015] EWHC 3297 (Admin)
Bailii

Animals

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554642

Keeble v Hickeringall (472): 1738

[1738] EngR 472, (1688-1710, 1738) Holt KB 17, (1738) 90 ER 907
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringill 1796
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringall 1738
Holt CJ, delivered the opinion of the Court for the plaintiff, and said, that this is a new action, but is supported by the old reason and principles of law ; taking of wild-fowl is a lawful and profitable employment, it is as if it were his trade . .
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringall (470) 1738
. .
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringhall 1795
Case lies where the plaintiff had a possession without any property. Case in which the plaintiff declared, that he was possessed of a decoy pond frequented with ducks, of which he made great gains, and that the defendant knowing and maliciously . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Animals

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.385865

Ford v Seymour-Williams: CA 8 Dec 2021

Questions as to the scope of the strict liability obligation that arises under s. 2 of the Animals Act 1971 (‘s. 2’) (‘the Act’). It arises out of a claim by the Appellant for personal injury damages and consequential losses following an incident on 15 September 2018 when the horse that she was riding (‘the horse’) reared and fell on top of her. The Appellant suffered severe injuries. She sued the Respondent on the basis that, as keeper of the horse, he was strictly liable to her under s. 2(2) of the Act (and s. 2(2) alone); no allegations of fault-based liability were made.

Lady Justice Macur,
Lady Justice Carr,
And,
Lord Justice William Davis
[2021] EWCA Civ 1848
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Animals, Personal Injury

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.670333

Commission v Greece: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 1999/74/EC – Articles 3 and 5, paragraph 2 – Raising of laying hens – unenriched cages – Prohibition – Breeding laying hens in cages do not comply with requirements arising under this Directive

C-351/13, [2014] EUECJ C-351/13
Bailii
Directive 1999/74/EC 3 5

European, Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536448

Sofia Zoo v Orszagos Kornyezetvedelmi, Termeszetvedelmi es Vizugyi Fofelugyeloseg: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of species of wild fauna and flora – Regulation (EC) No 338/97 – Article 11 – Invalidity of an import permit restricted to the specimens of animals actually affected by the ground of invalidity

R. Silva de Lapuerta, P
C-532/13, [2014] EUECJ C-532/13
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 338/97
European

Animals

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.536456

Dodsworth v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 8 Nov 2010

The defendant effectively sought to appeal against his conviction on his own guilty plea to possession of wild bird eggs. They had been collected before possession itself was made an offence, and he had received them before the 2004 Act, after which only the person originally collecting an egg could lawfully possess it. He said that he had entered a plea only on the basis of incorrect legal advice. He now wished to argue that the 2004 Regulations were invalid becaue the necessary period of consultation had not been undertaken. The defendant had not given the required written notice inder the Rules, and the application was after six months against a limit of three weeks.
Held: The case based upon lack of consultation was now accepted to be hopeless, and nor were the 2004 Regulations ultra vires.

Langstaff J
[2010] EWHC 3435 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection of Birds Act 1954 1, Protection of Birds Act 1967, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (England and Wales Amendments) Regulations 2004, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142, Criminal Procedure Rules 37.9
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Eshugbayi Eleko v Office Administering the Government of Nigeria HL 24-Mar-1931
The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: Lord Atkin said that in a habeas corpus case, ‘no member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a British subject except on condition that he can support the legality . .
Cited – Ansar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others CA 9-Oct-2006
The claimant challenged a decision of the chairman of the Employment tribunal not to recuse himself on a later hearing after the claimant had previously made allegations of bias and improper conduct against him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.427934

Welsh v Stokes and Another: CA 27 Jul 2007

The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Held: The appeal failed on either account. The judge had directed himself properly in his consideration of the weight to be accorded to the hearsay evidence, and had had regard to each of the factors in section 4(2) of the 1995 Act. As regards knowledge under section 2(b) under the 1971 Act: ‘I do not see why a keeper’s knowledge that a horse has the characteristic of normally behaving in a certain way in particular circumstances cannot be established by showing that the keeper knows that horses as a species normally behave in that way in those circumstances . . It is a general characteristic of horses to bolt in the particular circumstances of the facts of Mirvahedy, or to rear in the particular circumstances of the present case. It makes no sense to require a keeper, if aware of that general characteristic, to have some additional and more particular knowledge.’

Dyson, Thomas, Richards LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 796, [2008] 1 All ER 921, [2008] 1 WLR 1224, [2007] PIQR P27, (2007) 151 SJLB 1020, [2007] PIQR P27
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2(2), Civil Evidence Act 1995 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The ‘Ferdinand Retzlaff’ 1971
The plaintiff shipowners claimed damages for detention following a collision with the defendants’ ship. There was an issue as to how long the ship repairs would have taken if they had been done at Bremen. The defendants adduced evidence on this . .
Cited – The ‘Kilmun’ 1988
Although the giving of evidence by way of statements under the Civil Evidence Act 1968 was convenient, ‘it is obvious that it is not a satisfactory way of resolving disputed issues of fact’. . .
Cited – Cummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .
Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
Cited – Mirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
Cited – Breeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .

Cited by:
Cited – Freeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Animals

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.258427

Mirvahedy v Henley and another: HL 20 Mar 2003

The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular circumstances’, these being some sort of fright or other external stimulus. Section 2 places all animals into one of two categories by their species. Animals either belong to a dangerous species, or they do not. A keeper of an animal is liable for damage caused by his animal dependant upon the category. A dangerous species must meet two requirements, a) that it is not commonly domesticated here and b) that fully grown animals ‘normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe’.
Lord Nicholls: ‘Take a large and heavy domestic animal such as a mature cow. There is a real risk that if a cow happens to stumble and fall onto someone, any damage suffered will be severe. This would satisfy requirement (a). . . But a cow’s dangerousness in this regard may not fall within requirement (b). This dangerousness is due to a characteristic normally found in all cows at all times. The dangerousness results from their very size and weight. It is not due to a characteristic not normally found in cows ‘except at particular times or in particular circumstances.”

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Nicholls
Times 24-Mar-2003, [2003] UKHL 16, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2003] 2 AC 491, [2003] RTR 26, [2003] PIQR P25, [2003] NPC 38, [2003] 2 WLR 882, [2003] 2 All ER 401
House of Lords, Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2 6(2) 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Mirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
Cited – Breeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .
Cited – Cummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .

Cited by:
Cited – Clark v Bowlt CA 26-Jun-2006
A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if . .
Cited – Welsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Cited – Freeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.179981

Morge, Regina (on The Application of) v Hampshire County Council: CA 10 Jun 2010

Over time, an abandoned railway line had become a habitat for local wildlife. The claimant now objected to the grant of planning permission for a light railway.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. For an act to fall within 12(1)(b) of the Directive so as to be a Deliberate Disturbance, the act complained of had to be directed at the protected species. As from 2009, the effect only of local distributions of the species need be considered. The disturbance need not be significant. When considering an application which ostensibly affected habitat of a species protected under European law or the species itself, an authority must have regard to the Directive’s requirements.

Ward, Hughes, Patten LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 608, [2010] WLR (D) 145, [2010] PTSR 1882, [2010] JPL 1600, [2010] NPC 67
Bailii, WLRD
Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, Council Directive 92/43/EEC (OJ L206, p 7) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Commission v Greece C-103/00 ECJ 30-Jan-2002
ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Protection of species.
Advocate General Leger explained article . .
Cited – Commission v Spain ECJ 18-May-2006
ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Protection of species – Hunting using stopped snares in private hunting . .
Cited – Commission v United Kingdom ECJ 20-Oct-2005
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fufil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora.
The respondent had failed properly to transpose the Habitats Directive into . .
Cited – Woolley, Regina (On the Application of) v Cheshire East Borough Council Admn 5-Jun-2009
. .
See Also – Morge v Hampshire County Council CA 28-Jan-2010
. .
At First Instance – Morge v Hampshire County Council Admn 17-Nov-2009
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Morge v Hampshire County Council SC 19-Jan-2011
The claimants had challenged the allocation of a former railwy line to become a rapid bus service, saying that the Council had failed properly to take account of the Habitats Directive. The Supreme Court was asked as to the extent of doisturbance to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Animals, European

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.416600

Partridge v Crittenden: QBD 1968

The defendant advertised for sale ‘Bramblefinch cocks, Bramblefinch hens, 25s each’. It would be an offence unlawfully to offer a wild live bird for sale.
Held: The advert was an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale, and he was not guilty.

[1968] 2 All ER 421, [1968] 1 WLR 1204
Protection of Birds Act 1954 6(1) Sch 4
England and Wales

Contract, Animals, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.252547

Freeman v Higher Park Farm: CA 30 Oct 2008

The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a very experienced rider. A horse was a domesticated animal within the 1971 Act, and therefore the claimant had to show the presence of characteristics which would not normally be present, and that these were known to the defendant.
Held: The judge should have asked whether the injury likely to result from a fall was severe. It will be. However the claimant had not established that a propensity to buck was abnormal in a horse, and therefore her claim failed. The claimant was informed of the characteristic, and went ahead nonetheless and was therefore a volunteer and could not claim in negligence.

Tuckey LJ, Smith LJ, Etherton LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1185, [2009] PIQR P6
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
Cited – Clark v Bowlt CA 26-Jun-2006
A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if . .
Cited – Welsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Cited – Cummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Animals, Negligence

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.277358

Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 24 Apr 2012

The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA conducting a private prosecution was not a ‘prosecutor’ able to take the benefit of section 31 of the 2006 Act. She argued that the power under section 31 of the 2006 Act to certify conclusively for the purposes of limitation when matters came to the prosecutor’s knowledge was a power that was restricted to state prosecutors and not to private prosecutors.
Held: After a review of the provisions of the Act, the power was a power available to all prosecutors.
The phrase ‘the prosecutor’ in section 31 of the 2006 Act is not limited to prosecutors who prosecute pursuant to a power conferred by some statutory provision but applies to anyone who initiates a prosecution under the Act. The absence of a remedy by way of judicial review against a private prosecutor was not a basis to conclude that section 31 was to be interpreted so as to exclude private prosecutors from its ambit. The magistrates’ court in which a prosecution is brought can investigate whether or not the proceedings have been brought within the time limit specified in section 31 of the Act and it can also investigate whether any certificate issued under section 31(2) should be treated as conclusive of the facts stated therein. Once an appropriate procedure exists for contending that the prosecutor has not brought proceedings within time or that the certificate issued under section 31(2) should not be treated as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein the absence of a remedy by way of judicial review loses much of its significance.

Sir John Thomas P
[2012] EWHC 1002 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4 31, Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(10
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kerr v John Mottram Ltd ChD 1940
The court considered an application by a shareholder of a company to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of shares that he claimed were offered to him at a meeting of the company. The minutes of the company meeting did not support the . .
Cited – Regina v Haringey Magistrates’ Court ex parte Amvrosiou Admn 13-Jun-1996
When the appellant appeared at the Magistrates’ Court to answer a charge of driving whilst uninsured, a preliminary point was taken on her behalf that the prosecution had not been commenced within 6 months of the date on which evidence sufficient in . .
Cited – Terra Woningen BV v The Netherlands ECHR 17-Dec-1996
A court had considered itself bound by a decision of the Provincial Executive within the Netherlands adverse to the applicant company.
Held: That was in breach of article 6(1). There was not access to a tribunal with sufficient jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
Cited – Burwell v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-May-2009
The defendant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates to accept a prosecutor’s certificate as to compliance with time limits for commencing the prosecution. He argued that the police had all the evidence in their possession at an earlier . .

Cited by:
Applied – Browning v Lewes Crown Court and RSPCA Admn 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against the refusal by the respondent to state a case regarding its conviction of the claimant of offences under the 2006 Act.
Held: In view of the case of Perkins, the application failed save that the Crown Court should . .
Cited – Virgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 24-Jan-2014
Zinga had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in a private prosecution brought by Virgin Media. After dismissal of the appeal against conviction, Virgin pursued confiscation proceedings. Zinga appealed against refusal of its argument that it was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452904

Whippey v Jones: CA 8 Apr 2009

The claimant was running along a river embankment. A large dog owned by the appellant, taking it for a walk, was off the leash. It ran out at the claimant who broke his ankle falling into the river. The defendant appealed against a finding that he had been negligent.
Held: The dog owner’s appeal was allowed. The damage caused was found by the judge only to be a possibility if the dog was released in these circumstances, but liability should only have been found if such an injury was likely.

Waller, Rimer, Aikens LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 452
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Muir HL 16-Apr-1943
The House considered the proper test to define the standard of care that must be adopted by the reasonable man in a claim for negligence.
Held: Lord Clauson said that the test is whether the person owing the duty of care ‘had in contemplation . .
Cited – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Animals

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.341244

Commission v Italy: ECJ 22 May 2014

ECJ Judgment – Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 1999/74/EC – Articles 3 and 5, paragraph 2 – Prohibition of rearing laying hens in unenriched cages – Breeding laying hens in cages do not comply with requirements arising under this Directive

Safjan, P
C-339/13, [2014] EUECJ C-339/13
Bailii
Directive 1999/74/EC
European

Animals, Agriculture

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.525831

MacDonald v Animal Plant and Health Agency: QBD 29 Jul 2021

Alpaca Destruction order was lawful and Fair

Appeal by way of case stated against the decision of District Judge (Magistrates Court) Layton on 4 May 2021 sitting at Bristol Magistrates Court to grant a warrant to the respondent to enter a farm in Wooton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, and remove and slaughter an alpaca-nevalea named Geronimo owned by the appellant. The appellant suggested that the test result for bovine tuberculosis was a false positive.
Held: The finding by the Administrative court was binding on the District Judge: ‘a decision of a higher court between essentially the same parties and in respect of the same subject matter and issues is binding on those parties in all its conclusions on those issues, whether they be factual or legal.’ The DJ had considered the evidence said to be new, and maintained the decision. That was not itself a perverse decision. Nor was the decision an unjustified interference or infringement of the claimant’s human rights. Nothing said by the claimant had been overlooked or not given a fair hearing. Her further and late evidence had been considered, and the SS had been free to refuse to allow further tests which need go no further to show the animal’s status.

Mr Justice Griffiths
[2021] EWHC 2325 (QB)
Bailii
Animal Healt Act 1981 32(1) 62A
England and Wales

Animals, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.666701

PY, Regina v: CACD 22 Jan 2019

Police ‘lawful use’ of dog must be police work

The prosecutor wished to appeal from the acquittal of a police officer, whose police dog, while being exercised, attacked a runner causing injury. The judge had accepted the defence, since the dog required exercise, the officer was using the dog for a lawful purpose with the appropriate defence under section 10(3) of the 1991 Act to a charge of allowing it to be dangerously out of control. The defendant objected that the prosecutor had used email to notify his acquittal agreement to the court.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
The email notification was effective: ‘Section 58(4) requires the prosecution to inform the court that it intends to appeal (or request an adjournment and subsequently inform the court following the adjournment); and section 58(8) requires the prosecution at the same time or before it informs the court that it intends to appeal, also to inform the court of its acquittal agreement. Those two subsections contemplate the court potentially being informed of something at three different times: (a) following the ruling, of the intention to appeal; (b) following the adjournment, of the intention to appeal; and (c) at the same time or before either of those events, of the acquittal undertaking. Additionally, subsection (4) contemplates that the prosecution might make a request for an adjournment to consider whether to appeal . . Section 58 of the 2003 Act does not explicitly specify any mechanism for informing the court (or requesting an adjournment). Does it implicitly require each of the steps we have identified to be taken orally in court? . . Our conclusion is that it does not.’
‘The material words of section 10(3), namely ‘do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown’ imports four concepts. First, of the dog whose behaviour is under scrutiny; secondly, whether that dog was being used at the time; thirdly, whether that use was for a lawful purpose; and fourthly, whether that use was by a police constable (or other Crown servant). The broad context in which these concepts fall to be interpreted is the statutory purpose of section 3 of the 1991 Act. That is to provide protection to the public from dogs which are dangerously out of control. The provision is one of strict liability. Criminal liability does not depend upon proof of any fault, negligence or even an ability to avoid the statutory harm. For that reason, although the respondent emphasises that the dog, who was exercised regularly off the lead, had never behaved in this way before and always previously responded to commands, those circumstances provide no defence.
The interpretation of the exemption should not undermine the statutory purpose by giving it an extravagant meaning.’

Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ,Cheema-Grubb, Goose JJ
[2019] EWCA Crim 17, [2019] WLR(D) 38
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Justice Act 2003 58(8), Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3, Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 38
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – LSA, Regina v CACD 16-May-2008
(Courts-Martial Appeals Court) The defendant had faced road traffic offence charges, but the court had discharged the case using the Forest of Dean case. The prosecutor sought to appeal but failed to give the undertaking with regard to taking no . .
Cited – NT, Regina v CACD 31-Mar-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse. The prosecution had failed give the undertaking necessary on lodging the appeal to the court against whose ruling it wanted to appeal, that it agreed that the defendant should be . .
Cited – Regina v F CACD 14-Mar-2013
The crown sought leave to appeal against a terminating ruling. The defendant was accused of rape and sexual assault against his sister, profoundly deaf and with learning difficulties. The judge had found the victim to not be competent to give . .
Cited – The Knightland Foundation, Regina v CACD 26-Jul-2018
The court considered the practice on the giving of the acquittal undertaking. Hallett LJ said that it would be best practice to give the information in open court because: (a) that enables the judge to keep control over the proceedings, including . .
Cited – Merseyside Police Authority v Police Medical Appeal Board and others Admn 23-Jan-2009
Two police officers had been granted additional retirement annuities on the basis that they had been injured in the execution of their duty. The chief constable denied this. A police officer who was on annual leave was injured whilst exercising the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Animals, Police

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.633287

Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be left alone to pursue their personal affairs and live as they chose. Hunting was a very public activity and a ban did not infringe article 8. As to the complaints under European law, the matter was not acte clair, and if persued the matter would have to be referred to the ECJ. The 2004 Act was the latest in a long line of Acts restricting animal cruelty, the making of which was a matter of moral judgement by Parliament.
Lord Rodger interpreted article 8 as protecting from arbitrary interference many activities which a person chooses to pursue in his private life for enjoyment, and excluded hunting from protection because it was a public spectacle.
Lord Bingham observed: ‘There are of course many . . who do not consider that there is a pressing (or any) social need for the ban imposed by the Act. But after an intense debate a majority of the country’s democratically elected representatives decided otherwise. It is of course true that the existence of duly enacted legislation does not conclude the issue . . Here we are dealing with a law which is very recent and must . . be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation. The degree of respect to be shown to the considered judgment of a democratic assembly will vary according to the subject matter and the circumstances. But the present case seems to me pre-eminently one in which respect should be shown to what the House of Commons decided. The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.’
Lord Hope said: ’60 As Lord Bingham of Cornhill said in R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 1 AC 484, para 13, expressions such as ‘ambit’ are not precise and exact in their meaning. As he put it ‘They denote a situation in which a substantive Convention right is not violated, but in which a personal interest close to the core of such a right is infringed.’ That will be so if, for example, the state, having set up an institution such as a school or other educational establishment in unilingual regions, takes discriminatory measures within the meaning of art 14 read with the right to education in art 2 of the First Protocol which are based on differences in the language of children attending these schools: see Belgian Linguistic Case (No 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252, para 32. Clift’s case provides another example closer to home. It was held that a scheme which had been set up by legislation which gave the right of early release of prisoners fell within the ambit of the right to liberty in art 5 of the Convention. Differential treatment of prisoners otherwise than on the merits gave rise to a potential complaint of discrimination under art 14.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2007] UKHL 52, Times 29-Nov-2007, [2007] 3 WLR 922, [2008] HRLR 10, [2008] Eu LR 359, [2008] UKHRR 1, [2008] 2 All ER 95, [2008] 1 AC 719
Bailii
Hunting Act 2004, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
Appeal From – Countryside Alliance and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General Another, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 23-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Act under human rights law and on European law grounds. A variety of effects of the Act were alleged. It was said that it would prevent landowners enjoying their own land, and that the Act . .
Cited – G and E v Norway ECHR 3-Oct-1983
The court considered the protection to be given to native peoples such as the Saami of Northern Norway. . .
Cited – Whaley and Another v Lord Advocate HL 28-Nov-2007
The House considered claims that the 2002 Act, which set out to make unawful the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unlawful, infringed the claimants’ human rights, in that it contravened international treaties requiring the support for traditional . .
Cited – Niemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
Cited – Giacomelli v Italy ECHR 2-Nov-2006
A home will usually be the place, the physically defined area, where private and family life develops and that the individual has a right to the quiet enjoyment of that area. . .
Cited – Chassagnou and Others v France ECHR 29-Apr-1999
A law permitted local authorities to oblige landowners to transfer hunting rights over private land to approved hunting associations. The landowners could not prevent hunting on their property. Landowners so affected were made members automatically . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General Another, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 23-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Act under human rights law and on European law grounds. A variety of effects of the Act were alleged. It was said that it would prevent landowners enjoying their own land, and that the Act . .
Cited – A v The Scottish Ministers PC 15-Oct-2001
(Scotland) The power to detain a person suffering from a mental illness, in order to ensure the safety of the public, and even though there was no real possibility of treatment of the mental condition in hospital, was not a disproportionate . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Rassemblement Jurassien Unite Jurassienne v Switzerland ECHR 10-Oct-1979
(Commission) The right to freedom of expression is one of the foundations of a democratic society. The subjection of meetings in public thoroughfares to an authorisation procedure did not normally encroach upon the essence of the right. The concern . .
Cited – Stec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2006
(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination.
Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences . .
Cited – Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2 ECHR 9-Feb-1967
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to . .
Cited – Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants were former serving prisoners who complained that the early release provisions discriminated against them unjustifiably. Each was subject to a deportation requirement, and said that in their cases the control on the time for their . .
Cited – Stec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2006
(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination.
Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences . .
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Cited – Konkama v Sweden ECHR 25-Nov-1996
Admissibility decision. The right to fish or hunt is a civil right within the meaning of article 6. . .
Cited – Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools.
Held: The parents’ philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their . .

Cited by:
Cited – OB v Aventis Pasteur SA HL 11-Jun-2008
The claimant had been vaccinated with a HIB vaccine. He was severely injured and it was said that the vaccine was the cause, and a claim made under the 1987 Act. Originally the claim was made against a UK company, but it should have been against . .
Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Admn 20-May-2008
The applicants were detained at Rampton. The form of detention denied the access to space in which they would be able to smoke cigarettes to comply with the law.
Held: The claim failed. The legislative objectives were sufficiently serious to . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another QBD 29-Oct-2008
The applicant suffered mutiple sclerosis and considered that she might wish to go abroad to end her life. She asked the court to make more clear the guidance provided by the Director as to whether her partner might be prosecuted under section 2(1) . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 29-Oct-2008
The applicant said that the defendant had unlawfully failed to provide detailed guidance under section 10 of the 1985 Act, on the circumstances under which a prosecution might lie of a person performing acts which might assist another to commit . .
Cited – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants had been provisionally listed as ‘people considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults’ which meant that they could no longer work, but they said they were given no effective and speedy opportunity to object to the listing. . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and others CA 19-Feb-2009
The claimant suffered a debilitating terminal disease. She anticipated going to commit suicide at a clinic in Switzerland, and wanted first a clear policy so that her husband who might accompany her would know whether he might be prosecuted under . .
Cited – N, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health; Regina (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust CA 24-Jul-2009
The claimants appealed against the imposition on them of smoking bans while they were compulsorily detained at Rampton Hospital. They said that other persons detained for example in prisons had been exempted fully.
Held: The right or freedom . .
Cited – ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 19-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of an injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing his name in connection with a forthcoming article. The claimant had had an affair with a co-worker. Both were married. The relationship ended, . .
Cited – Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy CA 10-Feb-2012
The appellants owned a guesthouse. They appealed from being found in breach of the Regulations. They had declined to honour a booking by the respondents of a room upon learning that they were a homosexual couple. The appellants had said that they . .
Cited – Catt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
Cited – Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
Cited – H v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Cited – Steinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education CA 21-Feb-2017
Hetero Partnerships – wait and see proportionate
The claimants, a heterosexual couple complained that their inability to have a civil partnership was an unlawful discrimination against them and a denial of their Article 8 rights. The argument that the appellants’ case did not come within the ambit . .
Cited – McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Animals, Crime, European

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.261602

Interboves GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture): ECJ 9 Oct 2008

ECJ Directive 91/628/EEC Export refunds Protection of animals during transport – Transport of bovine animals by sea between two geographical points of the Community – Vehicle loaded onto a vessel without unloading the animals 12 hour rest period Obligation.

C-277/06, [2008] EUECJ C-277/06
Bailii
European

Animals

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.276794

Clark v Bowlt: CA 26 Jun 2006

A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if it can, the trial judge had failed to identify either the particular times of the particular circumstances when this characteristic manifested itself,

Lord Phillips MR
[2006] EWCA Civ 978
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .

Cited by:
Cited – Freeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.243293

Badger Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 29 Aug 2014

The respondent had carried out the first round of a badger cull, subject to supervision and reporting by an independent expert panel. Promoises were made, the claimant said, that the panel’s role would be maintained for any subsequent round. The panel’s report was critical. The Trust now sought judicial review of a decision that a second round would be without such review, claiming breach of a legitimate expectation.
Held: The request was rejected. Any promise of the contiued involvement of the expert panel was not clear enough to found a legitimate expectation, and indeed the original olicy envisaged a lesser involvement than had occurred, and a promise involvement of the sort asserted would be an improper removal of control of policy making from the executive. The Independent Expert Panel itself had originally only envisaged involvement to the extent already completed.

Kenneth Parker J
[2014] EWHC 2909 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd CA 1990
Legitimate Expectation once created not withdrawn
The claimant said that a change of practice by the Revenue was contrary to a legitimate expectation.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not withdraw from a representation if it would cause: substantial unfairness to the applicant; if the . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Cited – The Association of British Civilian Internees – Far Eastern Region (ABCIFER) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 3-Apr-2003
The association sought a judicial review of a decision not to pay compensation in respect of their or their parents or grandparents’ internment by the Japanese in the Second World War. Payment was not made because those interned were not born in . .
Cited – Paponette and Others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 13-Dec-2010
The appellants operated taxis in Port-of-Spain. The Minister proposed changes, but when challenged provided re-assurances. After the changes, the re-assurances were not satisfied. The claimants sought judicial review asserting that a legitimate . .
Cited – Patel, Regina (on The Application of) v General Medical Council CA 27-Mar-2013
The claimant had qualified as a doctor in St Kitts and Nevis. He appealed against refusal of his challenge to the decision of the respondent not to recognise his qualification. He relied upon a statement upon which he had relied.
Held: Whether . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State ex parte Khan CA 4-Apr-1984
The Secretary of State had refused an entry clearance for a child to be allowed into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption by the applicant, but had done so upon grounds nowhere mentioned in a Home Office circular letter apparently setting . .
Cited – Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
Cited – Bhatt Murphy (a firm), Regina (on the application of) v The Independent Assessor CA 9-Jul-2008
The appellants each challenged alterations to the scheme for compensation of the victims of miscarriages of justice.
Held: Laws LJ emphasised the special nature of the promise or practice which was necessary to give rise to a substantive . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Administrative, Judicial Review, News

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.536295

Zuchtvieh-Export v Stadt Kempten: ECJ 11 Sep 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Preliminary reference – Agriculture – Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 – Protection of animals during transport – Transport of animals from one Member State to a third country – Article 14, paragraph 1 – Check the logbook to make by the competent authority of the place before starting the long journeys – Annex I, Chapter V – Provisions regarding maintenance of water and feed as well as journey times and rest – Applicability of these provisions in Regarding the part of the transport takes place outside the territory of the Union

Bot AG
C-424/13, [2014] EUECJ C-424/13 – O, [2015] EUECJ C-424/13
Bailii, Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

European, Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.536727

Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd: CA 1 May 2020

Only Limited Ownership of pond fish

BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or animals domitae naturae.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘ the judge was wrong to find that BDS’s qualified property in the fish survived the transfer to CWF of the land on which the lakes stood. Given its investment in the fishery, that is indeed a hard result for BDS, but it is not a consequence of the law relating to wild animals but of the circumstances in which its land came to be sold by receivers. Had there been a normal commercial sale, BDS could have demanded payment for the fish, as indeed it did in the negotiations with CWF before matters were taken out of its hands. But with the sale, possession of the fish was lost and its qualified property rights came to an end.’
‘captive wild creatures are considered to be qualified property per industriam, even though they are also on land presumably owned by the same person. As explained by Sir Timothy at paragraph 25 above, the two rights are not symmetrical. One is an exclusive right to reduce the animal into possession by virtue of land ownership, the other an exclusive right to possession of the animal by virtue of some effort.’

Peter Jackson, Rose LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd
[2020] EWCA Civ 578, [2020] WLR(D) 265
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd ChD 24-Jul-2019
Dispute as to ownership of fish in fishing lake on its sale, and whether solar panels were fixtures. The fish had been purchased for the fishery. Small fish might escape through meshes, but larger fish were captive. The contract of sale of the land . .
Cited – Greyes Case 1593
Grey brought an action of trespasse against Bartholmew : the case was : A man did purchase divers fishes, viz. carpes, tenches, trouts, Be. arid put them into his pond for store, and then died.
The question was, whether the heire or the . .
Cited – Rex v Steer 1704
A quantity of carp was stolen from a private pond.
Held: the fish were the property of the owner of the pond. The fish could not swim away from an enclosed pond and thereby become lost. . .
Cited – Blades v Higgs and Another 8-Jun-1861
Wild animals, whilst living, though they were the property of the owner of the soil on which they were living, were not his personal chattels. Animals ferae naturae killed by a trespasser became the property of the landowner.
Lord Chelmsford . .
Cited – Regina v Townley 1871
Bovill CJ made it clear that in animals ferae naturae, there was no absolute property. There was only a special or qualified property. . .
Cited – The Attorney General for The Provinces British Columbia v The Attorney General for The Dominion of Canada and Another PC 2-Dec-1913
Canada – Lord Haldane set out the principles under which fishery rights might be acquired by prescription.
Fish stocks are a public resource, and there is no property in fish until they are caught. The right to fish in tidal waters or in the . .
Cited – Hesketh v Willis Cruisers Ltd CA 1968
Where the fishing rights have not been severed from the lake or river bed, they simply pass automatically as part of the land; and there is no need for them to be separately transferred to the purchaser of the land . .
Cited – Cresswell and Another v Director Of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants opposed the actions of DEFRA in trapping and then killing badgers. They were accused of criminal damage to the traps. They asserted a lawful excuse in seeking to release the badgers. While a wild animal was alive, there was no . .
Cited – Buckle v Holmes KBD 1925
The defendant’s cat had killed what were said to be valuable racing and homing pigeons and some bantams of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for damages for the loss, but was unable to prove that the defendant knew the cat to have any specially . .
Mentioned – Buckle v Holmes CA 1926
. .
Cited – Young v Hichens 21-Nov-1844
The plaintiff was fishing in the sea for pilchards and had drawn his net around a large number of fish, but at a moment when his net remained open by some seven fathoms and he was about to close it, the defendant rowed up to the opening of the net . .
Cited – Ewart v Graham HL 1859
The parties disputed the scope and extent of a reservation to the respondent’s father in an Act of Parliament of ‘all rights of hunting, shooting, fishing and fowling’ over certain specified land which had been owned by the respondent’s father and . .
Cited – Fitzgerald v Firbank 1897
The owner of a right of fishing asserted a cause of action without proof of special damage against someone who had polluted the river in which the right was exercised.
Held: A right of fishing was of such a nature that a person who enjoyed it . .
Cited – The Ship Frederick Gerring Jr v The Queen 1-May-1897
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court was asked whether a vessel was forfeit to the Crown on the grounds that it had been used for fishing within a three mile limit from the Canadian coast. The fishing process had started outside the limit. A large . .
Cited – Hamps v Darby CA 1948
The court was asked as to a civil action concerning the depredations of homing pigeons on crops.
Evershed LJ quoted from Holdsworth’s History of English Law about keeping a singing bird which is of value even though not in monetary terms: ‘For . .
Cited – Kearry v Pattinson CA 1939
A claim was made for damages by the plaintiff bee-keeper, against the defendant, his neighbour. The plaintiff’s bees swarmed and settled in the garden of the defendant. He sought to recover his bees but the neighbour initially refused to give the . .
Cited – Purcell v Minister for Finance 1939
(Supreme Court of Ireland) Legislation providing for compensation for malicious injury causing actual damage to property, payable out of public funds. Mr Purcell caught eels in a river, not being the owner of the land over which the river ran nor, . .
Cited – Pierson v Post CA 1805
Post and his hounds were pursuing a fox on waste ground in Long Island when Pierson intercepted and killed it. Post sued, claiming ownership of the fox, and won at trial. The court was asked: ‘Whether a person who, with his own hounds, starts and . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Torts – Other

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.650616

Smouha v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 14 Apr 2015

FTTTx EXCISE – seizure of crocodile skin handbag – failure to obtain CITES import permit – Appellant advised by AHVLA that goods fell within Appendix 1 of CITES – retrospective permit applied for but refused – forfeiture of handbag – Border Force refusal to restore upheld on review – handbag in fact within Appendix II of CITES – further application for retrospective permit – further refusal by AHVLA – Border Force review decision confirmed – whether discretion fettered – held, yes – whether refusal to restore Wednesbury unreasonable – held, yes because of failure to take into account all relevant factors – whether decision proportionate under EU law and the Convention – held, no – appeal allowed and Directions given

[2015] UKFTT 147 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Animals

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.546591

Cummings v Grainger: CA 1977

An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon the trespasser defence provided by section 5. The dog had characteristics not normally found in Alsatian dogs except in circumstances where they are used as guard dogs. These were ‘particular circumstances’ within section 2(2)(b). Such an animal is behaving dangerously but it is doing so in a manner characteristic of its species in the circumstances.
Lord Denning MR: ‘This is a case of a barmaid who was badly bitten by a big dog’

Lord Denning MR, Ormrod and Bridge LJJ
[1977] QB 397
Animals Act 1971 2 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Mirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
Cited – Mirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
Dictum applied – Curtis v Betts CA 1990
The defendant owned a bull mastiff dog. It was known to react fiercely when protecting its territory. The plaintiff, a child, had known the dog since it was a puppy, and approached as the dog was about to be put into a car. The dog bit his face . .
Cited – Welsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Cited – Freeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.180024

North Wales Police v Anglesey Justices: CA 16 Jul 2008

A dog bit a constable. The defendant said that the police had wrongly begun proceedings as an information, rather than by way of a complaint, and that they were a nullity.
Held: Rule 2.1 of the 1981 Rules is expressed in terms which show that the use of statutory forms is not mandatory, and embody an untechnical approach. The initiating document referred to a complaint and not an information, and that was what it was. The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused since the appeal had no merit.
May LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 920
Bailii
Dogs Act 1871 2, Magistrates’ Courts (Forms) Rules 1981 2.1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hughes 1879
Baron Huddleston said that: ‘objections and defects in the form of procuring the appearance of a party charged will be cured by appearance.’
Hawkins J said: ‘The information, which is in the nature of an indictment, of necessity precedes the . .
Cited – Regina v Nottingham Justice, ex parte Brown 1960
Proceedings which were begun incorrectly by the laying of an information rather than a complaint as required were a nullity. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.272241

Triggs v Lester: QBD 20 Jan 1866

A local act for a parish, in which was a large cattle market, enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any drover or other person to conduct or drive through any of the streets in the parish any oxen, sheep, or other cattle, during Sunday.
Held: that a person driving a van with horses, in which were calves being conveyed to the market, was not ‘driving’ or ‘conducting’ cattle within the meaning of the statute.
(1865-1866) LR 1 QB 259, [1866] UKLawRpKQB 4
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.653047

Saunders v Baldy: QBD 11 Nov 1865

The 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 3, forbids, under penalties, the killing or taking certain game during certain intervals of the year; and section 23 imposes penalties on any person taking or killing game, or using a dog or engine for that purpose, not being authorized for want of a certificate.
Held:, that a person using an engine for taking game without a certificate during the forbidden interval, was liable to penalties under the latter section, although he might also be liable to penalties under section 3.
[1865] EngR 725, (1865) 6 B and S 791, (1865) 122 ER 1385, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 14, (1865-1866) LR 1 QB 87
Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.281637

Churchward v Studdy: 21 Jun 1811

The plaintiff’s dogs having hunted and caught, on the defendant’s land, a hare started on the land of another, the property is thereby vested in the plaintiff, who may maintain trespass against the defendant for afterwards taking away the hare. And so it would be though the hare, being quite spent, had been caught up by a labourer of the defendant for the benefit of the hunters.
[1811] EngR 384, (1811) 14 East 249, (1811) 104 ER 596
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.339468

May v Burdett: 1846

The court considered the liability of the owner for a bite by his pet monkey.
(1846) 9 QB 101
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.258602

Purcell v Minister for Finance: 1939

(Supreme Court of Ireland) Legislation providing for compensation for malicious injury causing actual damage to property, payable out of public funds. Mr Purcell caught eels in a river, not being the owner of the land over which the river ran nor, so far as the report discloses, holding any right such as a profit a prendre of fishery. He put the eels into a large wooden box, referred to as a trunk, floating in the river and secured to the bank by chains. He kept the eels there, alive, until there were enough of them to take to the market for sale, a process which Johnston J on the first appeal from the circuit court described as involving acquisition of the eels per industriam. In his absence, a third party destroyed the trunk, thereby releasing the eels from their captivity back into their natural element. A claim for compensation was made for the loss of the eels, which so far as the evidence went had not themselves been injured in any way but certainly ceased to be the subject of any proprietary rights on the part of Mr Purcell when they escaped from captivity.
Held: It was a situation in which animals had been taken or reduced into possession, giving the taker rights arising from the possession, which however lasted only for so long as the possession did. Mr Purcell was able to get at eels in the trunk readily and with ease in order to take them on the next stage of their journey to market. Until the destruction of the trunk he had rights over the eels per industriam, without having had any rights ratione soli.
[1939] IR 115
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.650626

Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 16 Nov 2018

Hickinbottom LJ, Jay J
[2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 706
Bailii, WLRD
Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service SC 16-Oct-2020
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.630560

Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service: SC 16 Oct 2020

Lord Reed, President, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows
[2020] UKSC 39, [2020] 1 WLR 4309, [2021] Crim LR 299, [2021] 2 All ER 145, [2021] LLR 56, [2020] PTSR 1767
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 16-Nov-2018
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.654665

The Badger Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals: Admn 12 Jul 2012

The Badger Trust promoted the conservation and welfare of badgers, their setts and habitat. It challenged the decision of the Defendant to adopt a policy on bovine TB, ‘bTB’, and badger control in England pursuant to which she would authorise Natural England to license groups of farmers and landowners to cull badgers.
Ouseley J
[2012] EWHC 1904 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
England and Wales

Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.551933

James v The Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 19 May 2010

The defendant had pleaded guilty to three charges of causing unnecessary cruelty to animals. She appealed against an order for unpaid community work and the costs of pounds 38,644. The horses had been removed by the Society after a veterinary surgeon said it was necessary under the 2006 Act. The defendant said that the removal was unlawful since the section required the opinion to be certified, but it had been given orally. The issue is one of construction as to whether the word ‘certifies’ means certifies in writing.
Held: Keith J said: The word ‘certifies’ has to be construed, of course, in accordance with its ordinary meaning, subject to the context of the statutory provisions in which it appears. The word connotes a degree of formality, and the proposition that the degree of formality which is necessary is that the certification be in writing is, in my view, supported by section 18(10) of the Act, which provides, so far as is material: ‘A veterinary surgeon may examine and take samples from an animal for the purpose of determining whether to issue a certificate under subsection . . (5) with respect to the animal.’ However: ‘it would, I think, be very surprising if section 18(5) were to be construed in a way which permits a police officer to act so as to put an animal out of its distress before the veterinary surgeon arrives, but does not permit the animal to be relieved of its suffering after the veterinary surgeon arrives, even though the veterinary surgeon thinks that the animal is suffering, but for one reason or another does not put that into writing.’ and ‘ I have concluded that section 18(5) does not require the certification to be in writing, and that the seizure and detention of Mrs James’s horses was not unlawful.’
Keith J
[2011] EWHC 1642 (Admin), (2011) 175 JP 485
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.441397

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA), Regina (on the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 7 Oct 2008

The Society sought judicial review of the 2006 Regulations allowing the last resort killing of poultry by shutting off ventilation so as to lead to hypothermia or organ failure.
Held: The European Directive required appropriate measures to kill animals as soon as possible and, in any event, before they regained consciousness and to not interfere with them until after death. Those were requirements directed to means and not as to the success of such means or a guarantee that death would ensue in every case without more from unconsciousness. The clear objective of the Regulations was to protect public health, and the provision was proportionate to the risks. The objection failed.
Auld J
[2008] EWHC 2321 (Admin), [2009] PTSR 730
Bailii, Times
Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations (SI 2006 No 1200), Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations (SI 1995 No 731), Council Directive 93/119/EC
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.277016

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v Chester Crown Court: Admn 17 May 2006

Defendants had been convicted of maltreatment of horses. The crown court had overturned a permanent ban on keeping horses, substituting a limit of keeping 25 horses with a conditional discharge. The prosecutor now appealed.
Held: The court had no power to make the order it had in setting a number of animals. The power to grant a conditional discharge is dependent on its being inexpedient to inflict punishment, and that the power to annex conditions is not at large but is confined to a condition of committing no offence during a specified period. The conditions were quashed and remitted for resentencing.
Sedley LJ, beatson J
[2006] EWHC 1273 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection of Animals Act 1911 1(1)(a), Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 1(1), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 12(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Nash v Birmingham Crown Court Admn 18-Feb-2005
The defendant who had had 75 cats in her home with consequences that they had been not well looked after was convicted of animal cruelty. She had been ‘given a conditional discharge’, one of the conditions being that she could not thereafter look . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.242300

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, Regina (on the Application Of) v Shinton: Admn 30 Jun 2003

The defendant was licensed to set Larson traps to catch magpies. The traps worked by keeping a magpie as a decoy to attract others. The evidence was that the trapped magpie suffered distress and injury because the trap was so small as not to allow it to spread its wings.
Held: The defendant was not liable under the 1981 Act, but in the light of the evidence, was liable under the 1911 Act.
Leveson J
[2003] EWHC 1696 (Admin), Times 23-Jul-2003
Bailii
Protection of Animals Act 1911 1(1)(a), Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 8(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Barnard v Evans 1925
‘causing unnecessary suffering’ under the Act means doing something which it is not reasonably necessary to do and which is not justified. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.185616

Commission v France C-374/98: ECJ 7 Dec 2000

Europa (Judgment) The inventory of areas which are of great importance for the conservation of wild birds, more commonly known under the acronym IBA (Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community), although not legally binding on the Member States concerned, contains scientific evidence making it possible to assess whether a Member State has complied with its obligation to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for conservation of the protected species. It follows from the general scheme of Article 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds that, where a given area fulfils the criteria for classification as a special protection area, it must be made the subject of special conservation measures capable of ensuring, in particular, the survival and reproduction of the bird species mentioned in Annex I to that directive. The text of Article 7 of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora expressly states that Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive apply, in substitution for the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, to the areas classified under Article 4(1) or (2) of the latter directive. It follows that, on a literal interpretation of that passage of Article 7 of Directive 92/43, only areas classified as special protection areas fall under the influence of Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive. The fact that the protection regime under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 applies to areas that have not been classified as special protection areas but should have been so classified does not in itself imply that the protection regime referred to in Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43 replaces the first regime referred to in relation to those areas.
C-374/98, [2000] ECR I-10799, [2000] EUECJ C-374/98
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Bown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 August 2021; Ref: scu.162510

Commission v Cyprus (Failure Of A Member State To Fulfil Obligations): ECJ 15 Mar 2012

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Articles 4(1) and 12(1) – Failure to include Paralimni Lake as a site of Community importance within the time-limit laid down – System of protection for the species Natrix natrix cypriaca (Cypriot grass snake)
C-340/10, [2012] EUECJ C-340/10
Bailii
Directive 92/43/EEC
European

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452237

Langton, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 9 Aug 2021

Application for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s policy document ‘Next steps for the strategy for achieving bovine tuberculosis free status for England – The government’s response to the strategy review, 2018’
The Honourable Mr Justice Griffiths
[2021] EWHC 2199 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.666524